What the NFLPA did was this: They got protection for all their members, minus eight. And, with respect to the eight, the Commissioner stated his point of view. But they never agreed. In effect, they reserved the right to challenge it later.

If this was a stumbling block to completing the CBA … if Goodell was firm and refused to budge … this was the right way to handle it. It allows the season to get started, and it reserves the argument for a later point in time.

Would you rather the entire NFL season be held up over the issue of whether eight guys could conceivably be disciplined?

The only part of your post that I think is correct is the last sentence. If the NFL wanted to lock them out, it should be forced to forego discipline for conduct that occurred during the lockout.

So, I think Benson should win his appeal. But only against the NFL, not against the players association.

1) It demarcates two groups:
…a) These 8 players (who, let’s face it, need a name… the Gang of Eight… Benson’s Boys…)
…b) Everyone else who got into trouble
…(there is an implied third category–those who didn’t get into trouble during the Period–but that is irrelevant to the discussion)

2) For the “everyone else” category, there would be no punishment, however the league would be free (in the future) to consider the incidents when it might come to determining if the player in question is a repeat offender.

3) Benson’s Boys are subject to penalties for conduct during the Period. When you take all the supporting clauses out, that is what this sentence boils down to:The Commissioner has determined that the following players are repeat offender subject to discipline for conduct during the Period:

Then DM Smith and the NFLPA signed off on it. The text of the letter doesn’t have to say that “The Commissioner and the Players Association have agreed that the following players are repeat offenders subject to discipline for conduct during the Period.” Smith’s signature is the agreement.

The NFLPA really screwed the pooch on this one.
*And* the NFL is in the wrong to punish guys who weren’t technically employed at the time.

I didn’t read that letter to be a mistake. I read the letter to be the author of the letter (the NFL) covering itself to do anything it wants and have an out.

The NFLPA attornies should have caught and corrected… maybe they did in subsequent letters?

]]>By: tampafan24http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/august-4-letter-agreement-regarding-lockout-arrests/#comment-1283948
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:10:07 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=156548#comment-1283948So basically the NFL and the NFLPA drafted a letter that states they do not really agree on what should happen to players who get in trouble during the “Period”. At least these guys figured out a way to play football while the wrapped up all of these “small” issues.
]]>By: quirtevanshttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/august-4-letter-agreement-regarding-lockout-arrests/#comment-1283937
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:27:10 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=156548#comment-1283937Hmm. The players’ association is right.

The letter doesn’t agree that those eight guys can be punished. Rather, it reflects an agreement that anyone beyond those eight guys CAN’T be punished.

It says that the Commissioner has determined that those eight guys are repeat offenders, and subject to discipline. But it never says that the NFLPA agreed to that position.

The NFL will argue that the NFLPA implicitly agreed, but that agreement isn’t explicit.

In effect, the letter locks down the notion that no one other than the eight can be punished for lockout-related issues, and punts on the eight.

Looking at it from the outside, I’d guess that they couldn’t agree on how to handle the eight, and so entered into this letter to protect everyone else, and figured that they’d let an arbitrator sort out the status of the eight later.

Which, it seems, is exactly what will happen.

]]>By: jwbelthttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/august-4-letter-agreement-regarding-lockout-arrests/#comment-1283927
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 05:17:15 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=156548#comment-1283927Nope – unless I can’t read English anymore, Ced (and I’m a Bengals fan) and the other 7 were already considered repeat offenders. They were not among those protected from punishment for conduct issues.

Everyone else – if arrested – would not be punished but will have their conduct used as basis for “repeat offender” if they pull anything else.

As a Bengals fan, i’m pretty pissed, though, that Talib & Britt get no punishment while Ced will be suspended for 3 games. Come on – unless the media got the Talib thing entirely wrong, his conduct was far more egregious than Ced’s.

]]>By: bonniebengalhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/august-4-letter-agreement-regarding-lockout-arrests/#comment-1283922
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:41:53 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=156548#comment-1283922But will it stand up in court when every one of these players mentioned sues them?
]]>By: tnstevehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/august-4-letter-agreement-regarding-lockout-arrests/#comment-1283891
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:37:26 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=156548#comment-1283891Sloppy lawyering is what this is… The point being made was that the offenses during the period can and would be used against them for repeat offender status if any of them get in trouble again, but contradicts itself as well implying they could also get in trouble now. Just because one is a lawyer does not mean one can clearly articulate themselves orally or in writing…
]]>By: Topherhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/august-4-letter-agreement-regarding-lockout-arrests/#comment-1283852
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 03:01:35 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=156548#comment-1283852Okay, so that seems pretty straight forward. Cedric Benson isn’t suspended for what he did during the lockout he is suspended for getting into trouble more than once.

It’s also pretty straight forward that the league pulled one over on the union, or more probably the union chose not to defend these few in order to get a deal for the greater whole.

I’m a union guy but I’m also a law abiding citizen with no bleeding heart for people that get arrested. Staying out of jail really isn’t that hard.

]]>By: 50milessouthofdetroithttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/august-4-letter-agreement-regarding-lockout-arrests/#comment-1283822
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 02:39:18 +0000http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=156548#comment-1283822i take this to mean that they can’t be disciplined for what they did during the lockout, but they can be because they were repeat offenders. uh…ok
]]>